Get PJ Media on your Apple

The PJ Tatler

by
Bridget Johnson

Bio

April 16, 2013 - 1:44 pm

Saudi King Abdullah reached out to President Obama to express condolences for the Boston Marathon bombings and say that the attackers had “no religion,” according to the Saudi Press Agency.

“In his own name and on behalf of the people and government of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, the monarch expressed profound sorrow and pain for the death and injury of some innocent people as a result of the two terrorist acts in Boston, describing the perpetrators of the explosions as belonging to no religion at all and that no ethics or values ever accept this deed, and wishing the injured quick recovery and the American people steady security and stability,” the news agency said.

Prince Saud Al-Faisal, Saudi foreign minister, met briefly with Secretary of State John Kerry in Washington today in a meeting also attended by Saudi Ambassador to the U.S. Adel bin Ahmed Al-Jubeir and Osamah bin Ahmed Nugali, head of the information department at the Foreign Ministry.

“During the meeting, they discussed bilateral relations between the two friendly countries and regional issues of mutual concern, including Middle East peace efforts and the current situation in Syria,” the SPA reported. “Prince Saud Al-Faisal also expressed his condolences on the victims and the injured in the Marathon attacks in Boston.”

Secretary General of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu also condemned the bombings today, saying an “act targeting to destroy the peaceful atmosphere of a sporting event was cowardly and reprehensible.”

“He wished speedy recovery of the injured and underlined that the OIC stands with the United States Government and People in rejecting such violence,” the OIC added in the statement.

“These heinous crimes are not consistent with the provisions of any religion, violate international laws, oppose the simplest principles of humanity, aim at destabilizing security and stability of the United States of America, and terrorize its innocent people,” an official source at Kuwaiti Ministry of Foreign Affairs told the SPA.

Bridget Johnson is a career journalist whose news articles and opinion columns have run in dozens of news outlets across the globe. Bridget first came to Washington to be online editor at The Hill, where she wrote The World from The Hill column on foreign policy. Previously she was an opinion writer and editorial board member at the Rocky Mountain News and nation/world news columnist at the Los Angeles Daily News. She has contributed to USA Today, The Wall Street Journal, National Review Online, Politico and more, and has myriad television and radio credits as a commentator. Bridget is Washington Editor for PJ Media.

Comments are closed.

Top Rated Comments   
After all of the separate past examinations of the demonstrated fact that Muslims in authority will say one thing in English for our ears, and then state their true feeling as an aside in Arabic, why should we believe anything this Saudi king or any of his staff in his embassy in Washington say?...on any subject? Muslims resident in our America simply have no credibility.

"Condolences and concerns" expressed in English by Muslims of any nationality are meaningless.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
He's lying. Actually this religion, namely S. Arabia's Wahhabi, is just like that, and for a long time. William Darymple writes in "The Last Mughal," that during the 1857 Indian uprising, there were Wahhabi/Salafis which "included a regiment of 'suicide ghazis' from Gwalior who had vowed never to eat again and to fight until they met death at the hands of the kafirs, 'for those who have come to die have no need for food'."

Predictably, they got their wish.

I don't recall any stories like that during the Civil War or during WWII. Even the guys at the Alamo didn't want to die. You know why? They weren't crazy morons.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
“These heinous crimes are not consistent with the provisions of any religion, violate international laws, oppose the simplest principles of humanity, aim at destabilizing security and stability of the United States of America, and terrorize its innocent people,” ...

Short answer: B.S.

Longer answer: This event was ENTIRELY consistent with the provisions and doctrines of a particular religion. It may, or may not, have been financed by the source(s) of the quote. Perhaps someday people will wake up. Color me doubtful.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
All Comments   (28)
All Comments   (28)
Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated

“These heinous crimes are not consistent with the provisions of any religion, violate international laws, oppose the simplest principles of humanity, aim at destabilizing security and stability of the United States of America, and terrorize its innocent people,” ...

That statement would be correct if one more word were inserted into it. Put the word "sane" before religion so it reads:
“These heinous crimes are not consistent with the provisions of any SANE religion, violate international laws, oppose the simplest principles of humanity, aim at destabilizing security and stability of the United States of America, and terrorize its innocent people,” ...

These crimes are entirely consistent with Islam. What is wrong with this country?
51 weeks ago
51 weeks ago Link To Comment
Our dear friends the Saudis whose murderously religious beliefs are unblemished by any acts of human decency or religious tolerance have a direct line to one of their charitable recipients, Obama. After funding the slaughter of three thousand innocent Americans then sending a $10 million dollar check to help wipe the blood off the streets of New York City, this royal moron claims some kind of religious high ground by deciding that the Boston massacre was engineered by people without religion. May the enslaver of women and king of the murderously intolerant rot in hell and may he die a worse death than that which he inflicted on three thousand innocent Americans. I wonder if Obama was on his knees when he spoke to his king and benefactor?
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Nice for the king to say this while the kingdom finances the madrassas in Pakistan which turn out little monsters ripe for suicide vests. Saudis also finance the Muslim insurgency in Thailand, the devils in Nigeria and Kenya, radical prison chaplains in the USA and on and on.
The Saud family makes a Faustian bargain with Islam. Let us live lives of degeneracy, on the riviera with prostitutes and little boys and we'll fund the madness. Eventually the wolves on the Saudi leash will turn and consume their masters but until then the rest of the world pays.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Fifteen of the nineteen hijackers were Saudis. Presumably they were also of "no religion at all," which leads to a great mystery. Looking at the list of names, about the only thing they seem to have had in common is that most of them were named "Al".
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
The Saudis can see the writing on the wall ... American energy independance.
They are scared shitless of the U.S.A. becoming self-sufficient in oil supplies - which we are already in fact if policies would allow. The OIC? This body of anti- sovereignty jihadists control the U.N. and use it as a tool for furthering their propaganda efforts. This is interesting.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Kn U spl I S R A E L. They want them gone. And they want us gone if that's what it takes.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Isn't there anybody on PJM who can personally remember the cordial relations American had in the ME for decades after WWII even accounting for the early intervention erathat has continued since? Does why all that has signficantly changed have any bearing? The Muslims have a long history of conflict amongst their various sects but what happened that changed that to a global stance?

Nothing is as simplistic and some like to present. There is always cause preceeding an affect.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
The statement coming in the wake of the meeting between Ketchup Kerry and the Saudi ambassador, it is pretty telling.

Preemptive diplomacy, if there is such thing.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Ha! HA!

That's a pair......that Saudi ambassador and Kerry ......smile, smile, smile.

Sickening.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
After all of the separate past examinations of the demonstrated fact that Muslims in authority will say one thing in English for our ears, and then state their true feeling as an aside in Arabic, why should we believe anything this Saudi king or any of his staff in his embassy in Washington say?...on any subject? Muslims resident in our America simply have no credibility.

"Condolences and concerns" expressed in English by Muslims of any nationality are meaningless.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
He's lying. Actually this religion, namely S. Arabia's Wahhabi, is just like that, and for a long time. William Darymple writes in "The Last Mughal," that during the 1857 Indian uprising, there were Wahhabi/Salafis which "included a regiment of 'suicide ghazis' from Gwalior who had vowed never to eat again and to fight until they met death at the hands of the kafirs, 'for those who have come to die have no need for food'."

Predictably, they got their wish.

I don't recall any stories like that during the Civil War or during WWII. Even the guys at the Alamo didn't want to die. You know why? They weren't crazy morons.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Indeed, even the Kamikaze Corps thinks these guys are nuts and resents being compared to them (about 4/5 of the Kamikaze Corps survived the war because they were being held in reserve to use against the American invasion of Japan that ultimately didn't happen). They didn't want to die; they just felt it was the only way they could defend their homeland, and they only targeted military targets, never civilians.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/what-would-thatcher-do-in-a-post-american-world/comment-page-1/

Then, if you feel up to it, look at the various records written about U.S. Intervention policies of the Middle East Post WWII.

All to often strategies and policies come back to bite you. Nobody in the GOP understands better, the history and the affects of our nation-building strategies and policy post WWII than does Ron Paul and that includes the policies of U.S. intervention in the ME post WWII. One of only two areas in which I would endorse Dr. Paul on.

The matters of Bin Laden and his movement is a radicalized fundamentalist religious movemernt akin to some of our own radicalized religious movements that have produced violence however, contained on our own homefront.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
1 2 Next View All

One Trackback to “Saudi King to Obama: Boston Bombers Belonged to ‘No Religion at All’”